Drawing gun to defend property

[knight0334]

I keep saying this.. ...use of force is justified while making an arrest.

The one guy saw crimes being committed, used necessary force to stop and detain suspects until police arrived.. His actions were within statutes, constitutional, pro posse-comitatus(commonlaw, not the Fed law named such), and Hue & Cry.

[DaveM55]

I bet if I did that there would a fund for getting old Dave out of jail right now.

Or maybe some of you would let me rot.

But it really doesn't matter what any of us think, only what the local police and DA think.

My concern is he does this once and it only re-enforces his perceived right to do this again and maybe more.

I'd hate to see what would happen if he shot someone for stealing his personal property.

[MarcS]

locke argued that "every Man has a Property in his own Person"

short of that definition, best bet legally is to keep it holstered.

[Shawn.L]

CLINTON TWP — State police say a former candidate for township supervisor did nothing wrong by using a gun to detain another township man allegedly caught in the act of stealing campaign signs

politacally conected = not charged

It is always best to know your local police personally :-)

[Duck]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

There are still election signs in my area, Odd when I see them, cause in Quebec, the political party have 48 hours to pick them up or they pay a fine for every sign picked up after that, the smaller grass signs we see every where are $100 each, plywood up to 4X8 $500 and billboards over $1000. Believe me, they dont stay too long.

In Stafford Co, VA, it's illegal to place signs on the side of the road. They can be on personal property, but not along the road on public property. If you are found, you are fined. It was mainly to get the garage/yard sale signs off the side of the road, but helped with the election signs too.

[str8shooter]

Notice that the supervisor wannabe isn't off the hook yet. There's a hearing on 11/26. I'd like to see the outcome of that. I think the key point is, he claims he thought the thief was going for a gun, that would make pulling his weapon justified, albeit foolish, IMHO. Around my house, the guy in the pick up would have been more likely to pull out a 12 gauge than leave his bud behind, and he would have been perfectly within his rights to blow the supervisor away when he saw the handgun.

Here's a thought, if the candidate set out to catch the thieves in the act, why didn't he bring a camera instead of, or as well as, a gun? He could've taken pictures of the perps, the truck, the tags, and had a case without escalating a petty theft into a life threatening situation.

But, I guess the only question is was he wrong, not stupid.

[tes151]

Originally Posted by Thekatar

So you are willing to kill someone if they come on your grass and take a campaign sign?

Hmmm... sounds different when I phrase it that way, doesn't it.

Couldn't care less about campaign signs. I don't own any, so if there is one in my yard and you want it, go for it.

[Statkowski]

18 Pa. C.S. §507. Use of Force for the Protection of Property.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property. - The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:

(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or

(2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:

(i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession; and

(ii)

(A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or

(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained.

(b) Meaning of possession. - For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:

(1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession.

(2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon.

(3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right.

(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.

(1) The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:

(i) such request would be useless;

(ii) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or

(iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.

(2) The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

(3) The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:

(i) the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and

(ii) it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).

(4)

(i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:

(A) there has been an entry into the actor’s dwelling;

(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and

(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.

(ii) If the conditions of justification provided in sub­paragraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:

(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(d) Use of confinement as protective force. - The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

[Evolution]

Is it really deadly force if he shoots him in the toe?

[larrymeyer]

Originally Posted by tes151

Really? Come on my property ( not you personally ) and let me catch you stealing or vandalizing something and see what you wind up looking down. I don't feel obligated to allow common trash to steal or wreck what I've worked hard to have. Just my opinion.

I don't know after reading this maybe Randell's right about gun control LOL